Learning and Mislearning 83grown, while gram, the lower risk lower value crop, was grown more in the control.
The programme in the Naurangdeshar distributary system was said to be widely
accepted and acclaimed by the irrigators.
The better performance of the trial area was, however, at the expense of the rest
of the system. Water deliveries to the Rajasthan canal from Punjab were not regu-
lar, and fluctuations in canal water deliveries were ‘occasioned by the unpredictable
monsoon and lack of systems approach by the interstate irrigation promoters’
(Bithu, 1983, p74). Efforts were made to ensure timely and adequate supplies
from Punjab, but ‘in the meantime certainty of water delivery in Naurangdeshar
distributary system [had] been ensured through preferential running of the sys-
tem’. In his analysis, Bithu notes the connection between the trial performance
and this preferential treatment, and concludes that ‘since preferential running of
all systems on demand is not possible unless we ensure adequate and assured sup-
plies from Punjab, its extension to other systems is limited for sometime’ (Bithu,
1983, p77). The point can be taken further: if one part of the system receives guar-
anteed adequate and timely water when overall supplies are variable and unreliable,
then untimeliness and inadequacy are amplified in other parts of the system. Nau-
rangdeshar’s performance must have had costs elsewhere. It is perhaps unsurpris-
ing that there was a general consensus among farmers that the system should be
extended. Farmers will always go for a preferential water supply.
Learning and Mislearning
These cases throw light on learning and mislearning about canal irrigation, and
point to pitfalls. Four further observations can be made.
First, areas chosen for action research or pilot projects are often specially
favoured. Like the Koliary chak, they may be in the head reaches. Like both Koliary
and Mohini, they may be close to administrative headquarters. Conversely, con-
trols are often in less-favoured areas, as happened with the MRP and HRP con-
trols.
Second, special attention makes it difficult to draw practical conclusions. One
reason is multiple causality. If there are several interventions, and yields are higher,
then there are several explanations. The higher yields on the Koliary outlet could
be attributed to combinations of special supplies of the following: credit, HYV
seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, extension and water. Another reason is privileged access
to water at the cost of other parts of the system. The Koliary outlet and the Nau-
rangdeshar Distributary were both given specially adequate and reliable water sup-
plies from larger systems where other reaches already had inadequate and unreliable
supplies. In this, they were not unusual. Again and again, when an initiative –
whether described as action research, or pilot project, or experiment – is probed, it
emerges that it has been favoured for water. This may be a deliberate part of the
treatment, as with Koliary and Naurangdeshar; or it may be unintended, where